Despite spending an estimated $80 million, the government was unable to prove that Dr. Sami Al-Arian was a terrorist, yet he remains in prison and his sentence will likely be extended. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges warns that the abusive imprisonment of this nonviolent Palestinian dissenter does not bode well for the rest of us.

What kind of diabetes he had. If it was type 2 and he keeps up with that hunger strike, he'll leave the diabetes behind at the prison!

I also have to wonder- I've yet to see a non-semitic face charged with terrorism and jailed for years. I've yet to see a story with an anglicized name as the prisoner. What is the real danger for American Natives like me? Is there one, or are all of these arrests just for show to the American Public so the Bush Administration can claim to be "doing something" when the op

I want it to be illegal to cross the border either way. I'm all for anti-aircraft guns at the airports and mines on the border and using those excess Chinese shipping containers to reduce the depth at the 12 mile limit to a couple of feet (would be a heck of a boon for the coral that would quickly colonize those shipping containers).

Maybe you should try being a passive isolationist. Promoting government control of borders, anti-aircraft guns, and mines is only going to vest power in the people who profit most by promoting business policies and relationships which work against isolationism.

Are you ever going to recognize when you're supporting the very things which stab you in the back?

Maybe you should try being a passive isolationist. Promoting government control of borders, anti-aircraft guns, and mines is only going to vest power in the people who profit most by promoting business policies and relationships which work against isolationism.

How so, if you cut off their ability to smuggle goods (and of course, people- it's amazing how many of those cargo containers that come into the Seattle and Portland ports contain people) across borders? No, this isn't a rhetorical question- I'm ac

The point being that vesting the power, necessary for them to enforce the border, in a small group of people will always (historically proven) result in that small group of people using that power to benefit themselves. Unless you decentralize the power structure there has never been a group of people who, once given privelege and authority over others, could effectively police themselves for longer than two or three generations.The key to solving America's problems are contained in the spirit of the origi

The key to solving America's problems are contained in the spirit of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights: decentralization of the power and authority.

I'm all for decentralization of authority- in fact, look at what I've said. LOCAL gun emplacements, UNMANNED mine fields and completly impossible to cross sea barriers. I'd be all for unmanned and automated gun emplacements as well. NO travel essentially. And I don't see the original Constitution decentralizing authority very much- the upper cla

State legislatures isn't anything close to true decentralization. TRUE decentralization means each neighborhood (of no more than 250 households, rented or owned) has their own laws, their own army, their own border control, and their own ability to exile troublemakers. That's the limit of pre-civilized & pre-centralized communities, some would say that man evolved into that form of a government.

So if, say, Drake's Crossing in Oregon wanted to support it's local tree industry by slapping a 500% tarriff on Christmas trees imported from elsewhere, that would be within the 4th, 9th, and 10th Ammendments to do so?

(250 households)Is there a basis for this or is this your own personal estimate?

Largest FUNCTIONAL deliberative body in the world has 556 representatives. If everybody above

Nah, that just grants power to the people in the capitol building of each state, and even then, only power not reserved for the Federal Government. True decentralization is mob rule- democracy at a very low level, where you have a chance to debate on EVERY law ruling your life. Like communism, such freedom only works in very SMALL populations- our CITIES are too large for decentralization. BTW, I'm VERY for such decentralization- I don't see the people in the cities being very h

That's not isolatioism. That's imprisonment. It's like telling the birds they can't fly south for the winter. You expect to be able to keep people locked up in winter wasteland when the sunny tropics is merely hours away? The concept is truly what the kids these days call "totally whack". I have other words for it, but you wouldn't want your children or wife to hear them. Sorry, man. You're way off base here. To bring about any sanity in our existance,

That's not isolatioism. That's imprisonment. It's like telling the birds they can't fly south for the winter. You expect to be able to keep people locked up in winter wasteland when the sunny tropics is merely hours away?

Hey, the prison has a pool and a jacuzzi, and free medical care, why would anybody want to escape? The thought goes beyond the pale. What you are asking for is simply incomprehensible to me, in every way. The concept of it is so utterly absurd, that I don't know how to effectively argue against it. You're trying to find the square root of -16. You're

Heck, I hate the tropics so much I see no reason to travel south of Eugene.

Hey, the prison has a pool and a jacuzzi, and free medical care, why would anybody want to escape? The thought goes beyond the pale. What you are asking for is simply incomprehensible to me, in every way. The concept of it is so utterly absurd, that I don't know how to effectively argue against it. You're trying to find the square root of -16. You're dividing by zero. You're in an infini

I have to admit, you always good for a good laugh when it come to controlling human behavior. The borders are pure gold (and you want to cap the mine). But they won't be worth a red cent if you close them, and of course they won't if you tear them down either. But the benefits of the latter so enormously outweigh shutting people out or in. What you are doing is assuming that if the other person gains, for some reason you lose something. What was said in somebody else's journal that even from a self interest

I have to admit, you always good for a good laugh when it come to controlling human behavior. The borders are pure gold (and you want to cap the mine). But they won't be worth a red cent if you close them, and of course they won't if you tear them down either. But the benefits of the latter so enormously outweigh shutting people out or in. What you are doing is assuming that if the other person gains, for some reason you lose something.

That's just it. We don't live in a finite world. The only thing finite about it is our perceptions. When somebody learns something, do you become more ignorant? If you trade a widget for an apple, are either of you any poorer? You grow food, your neighbor grows food, don't both of you gain? Do either one of you go hungry? You learn to do more with less. Where's the loss? Our world is everything but finite.

That isn't neccessarily so- and it's stupid to assume it without proof

The tribes that try to remain isolated are dying off. At one time is was easy to stay that way. Not any more. It's too easy to get around, as it should be. We are on an island in space, and it is senseless and non-productive to divvy it up amongst warring tribes. Either make peace and share or simply die off. Those are the choices for the living.

My point is that the reason they are dying off is *directly* related to interferance in their cultures- and nothing else. Climate change is slow enough to produc